Original: English September 2017 REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE OIE TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL HEALTH STANDARDS COMMISSION Paris, 18 29 September 2017 The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (the Code Commission) met at OIE Headquarters in Paris from 18 29 September 2017. The list of participants is attached as Annex 1. The Code Commission thanked the following Member Countries for providing comments: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Japan, Mexico, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, South Africa, Taipei China, Thailand, USA, the Member States of European Union (EU) and the African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) on behalf of African Member Countries of the OIE. Comments were also received from the Global Alliance of Pet Food Associations (GAPFA), International Coalition for Animal Welfare (ICFAW) and the International Poultry Council (IPC). The Code Commission reviewed Member Country comments, which were submitted on time and supported by a rationale, and amended relevant chapters of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Terrestrial Code) where appropriate. The amendments are presented in the usual manner by double underline and strikethrough and the chapters are annexed to this report. In Annexes 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, amendments proposed at this meeting are highlighted with a coloured background to distinguish them from those proposed previously. The Code Commission considered all Member Country comments supported by a rationale and documented its responses. However, because of the large volume of work, the Code Commission was not able to draft a detailed explanation of the reasons for accepting or not each of the comments received and focused its explanations on the major ones. The Code Commission encourages Member Countries to refer to previous reports when preparing comments on longstanding issues. The Code Commission also draws the attention of Member Countries to those instances where the Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (the Scientific Commission), the Biological Standards Commission, a Working Group or an ad hoc Group has addressed specific Member Countries comments or questions and proposed answers or amendments. In such cases the rationale is described in the Scientific Commission s, Biological Standards Commission s, Working Group s or ad hoc Group s reports and Member Countries are encouraged to review its report together with those of the Scientific Commission, Biological Standards Commission, Working Groups and ad hoc Groups. These reports are readily available on the OIE website. Member Countries should note that texts in Part A of this report are submitted for comments and proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. Texts in Part B are submitted for comments. The reports of meetings of ad hoc Groups and other related documents are attached for information in Part C. Comments on Parts A and B of the report must reach OIE Headquarters by 9 January 2018 for them to be considered at the February 2018 meeting of the Code Commission. Comments received after the due date will not be submitted to the Code Commission for its consideration. Member Countries attention is drawn to the one page questionnaire on Veterinary Paraprofessionals Competency in Annex 36 and are requested to provide their responses to the OIE Headquarters by 9 January 2018. OIE 12, rue de Prony 75017 Paris France Tel: 33 (0)1 44 15 18 88 Fax: 33 (0)1 42 67 09 87 www.oie.int oie@oie.int
2 All comments and responses to the questionnaire and related documents should be sent to the OIE Standards Department at: standards.dept@oie.int. The Code Commission again strongly encourages Member Countries to participate in the development of the OIE s international standards by submitting comments on this report, and prepare to participate in the process of adoption at the General Session. Comments should be submitted as Word files rather than pdf files because pdf files are difficult to incorporate into the Code Commission s working documents. Comments should be submitted as specific proposed text changes, supported by a structured rationale or by published scientific references. Proposed deletions should be indicated in strikethrough and proposed additions with double underline. Member Countries should not use the automatic track-changes function provided by word processing software as such changes are lost in the process of collating Member Countries submissions into the Code Commission s working documents. Member Countries are also requested not to reproduce the full text of a chapter as this makes it easy to miss comments while preparing the working documents. Item No. Texts for Member Countries comments and proposed for adoption in May 2018 Part A: Annex No. 4.1 User s guide Annex 3 4.2 Criteria applied by the OIE for assessing the safety of commodities (Chapter 2.2.) Annex 4 4.3 Prevention and control of Salmonella in commercial pig production systems (Chapter 6.13.) Annex 5 4.7 Infection with lumpy skin disease virus (Articles 11.9.4., 11.9.5., 11.9.6. and 11.9.15.) Annex 6 4.8 Infection with African swine fever virus (Articles 15.1.1bis., 15.1.2., and 15.1.22. ) Annex 7 5.1 Glossary Annex 8 5.1 Proposed deletion of Glossary definition of transparency and consequential changes to chapter on import risk analysis (Articles 2.1.1 and 2.1.3.) Annex 9 5.4 Zoning and compartmentalisation (Chapter 4.3.) Annex 10 5.5 Collection and processing of in vitro produced embryos from livestock and horses (Chapter 4.8.) Annex 11 5.6 New chapter on vaccination (Chapter 4.X.) Annex 12 5.8 New chapter on introduction to recommendations for veterinary public health (Chapter 6.X.) Annex 13 5.9 The role of the Veterinary Services in food safety systems (Chapter 6.1.) Annex 14 5.10 5.11 Harmonisation of national antimicrobial resistance surveillance and monitoring programmes (Chapter 6.7.) Monitoring of the quantities and usage patterns of antimicrobial agents used in foodproducing animals (Articles 6.8.1. and 6.8.1bis.) Annex 15 Annex 16 5.12 Introduction to the recommendations for animal welfare (Article 7.1.1.) Annex 17 5.12 New article on guiding principles for the use of measures to assess animal welfare (Article 7.1.X.) Annex 18 5.13 Animal welfare and pig production systems (Chapter 7.X.) Annex 19 5.14 Infection with bluetongue virus (Chapter 8.3.) Annex 20 5.15 Infection with Brucella abortus, B. melitensis and B. suis (Article 8.4.10.) Annex 21 5.17 Infection with rinderpest virus (Article 8.15.2.) Annex 22 5.18 Infection with Burkholderia mallei (Glanders) (Chapter 12.10.) Annex 23
3 Item No. 5.2 Texts for Member Countries comments Animal health surveillance (Chapter 1.4.) (including proposed new definition of early warning system ) Part B: Annex No. Annex 24 5.7 New chapter on management of outbreaks of listed diseases (Chapter 4.Y.) Annex 25 6.1 6.2 New chapter on introduction to recommendations for disease prevention and control (Chapter 4.Z.) New chapter on the killing of reptiles for their skins, meat and other products (Chapter 7.Y.) Annex 26 Annex 27 6.3 New chapter on animal welfare and laying hen production systems (Chapter 7.Z) Annex 28 6.4 New chapter on infection with Trypanosoma evansi (non equine surra) (Chapter 8.X.) Annex 29 6.5 Draft revised chapter on infection with Trypanozoon in equids (Chapter 12.3.) Annex 30 6.6 6.6 Chapter 11.12. on infection with Theileria annulata, T. orientalis and T. parva (bovidae) New chapter on infection with Theileria lestoquardi, T. luwenshuni and T. uilenbergi (small ruminants) (Chapter 14.X.) Annex 31 Annex 32 7.2 Work programme Annex 33 7.4.1 Questionnaire on Veterinary paraprofessionals competency Annex 36 Item No. 5.13 Texts for Member Countries information Report of the ad hoc Group on Animal Welfare and Pig Production Systems (August 2017) Part C: Annex No. Annex 34 6.5 Report of the ad hoc Group on Equine Trypanosomoses (June 2016) Annex 35 7.4.1 Report of the ad hoc Group on Veterinary Paraprofessionals (August 2017) Annex 36 6.2. Report of the ad hoc Group on Killing Methods for Reptiles Commercially Processed for their Skins, Meat and Other Products Annex 37 6.3. Report of the ad hoc Group on Animal Welfare and Laying Hens Production Systems Annex 38 1. Meeting with the Director General The Code Commission met with Dr Monique Eloit, Director General, on 25 September 2017. Dr Eloit welcomed the Code Commission members and thanked them for their support and commitment to achieving OIE objectives. The Director General noted the procedure for nomination for election to the OIE Specialist Commissions and that the Evaluation Guide and the composition of the Evaluation Committee had been provided to the Council for its endorsement. The Director General also noted the ongoing work to develop standard operating procedures for the disease status recognition process and the revision of the related questionnaires. The Director General also informed the Code Commission that the Standards Department had several new staff who would be working specifically on the Observatory on the implementation of standards project and while the project was still in the design phase, it would be useful in the future to gather feedback from the Members of the Code Commission on issues related to the implementation of OIE standards by OIE Member Countries. In response, the President noted that the Code Commission was also making efforts to improve the guidance provided in its reports, along with rationale supporting its proposed changes to chapters and that it would look forward to being engaged in further discussion on the Observatory.
4 2. Adoption of the agenda The adopted agenda of the meeting is attached as Annex 2. 3. Cooperation with other Specialist Commissions a) Meeting with the President of the Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission The President of the Code Commission met with the President of the Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission (Aquatic Animals Commission). The Presidents discussed issues of mutual interest in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes to facilitate harmonisation of relevant chapters in the two Codes when under review by the respective Commissions. Issues discussed included: Harmonisation of the User s Guides for the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes, where appropriate. Development of draft Guidelines for the application of listing criteria. Proposed changes to the Glossary for definitions of biosecurity and biosecurity plan in the Aquatic Code, which are necessary for the new draft chapter on Biosecurity in Aquaculture Establishments in Section 4. The Code Commission expressed an interest in this work and the new chapter on biosecurity, noting that it would add this to its work programme. The President of the Code Commission noted that it was continuing with the proposed deletion of the definition of disease from the Glossary, but will retain the definitions for listed disease, emerging disease and notifiable disease. Revision to Chapter1.4. on surveillance in both Codes. Concerning the chapters on zoning and compartmentalisation, the President of the Aquatic Animals Commission noted its plan to develop a new chapter on the application of zoning. The President of the Code Commission noted that the general chapter of the Terrestrial Code on zoning and compartmentalisation was in the process of revision and would need first to be adopted before going further. Concerning the Code Commissions proposed new chapter on management of outbreaks of listed diseases, the President of the Aquatic Animals Commission noted its plans for a different approach, which will include the development of two new chapters, one on emergency disease preparedness and one on outbreak disease management. b) Consultation with the Presidents of the Biological Standards Commission and the Scientific Commission The meeting schedule did not allow for joint meetings with either the Biological or Scientific Commissions. However, there was consultation on several key items of work that was coordinated through the Secretariats. The Scientific Commission provided advice to the Code Commission in response to Member Country comments on several chapters under consideration at this meeting, including both horizontal and listed disease-specific chapters. It also provided suggestions for proposed amendments on its own initiative. The Biological Commission provided advice to the Code Commission in response to Member Country comments and in response to specific questions. 4. Examination of Member Country comments at the 85 th General Session 4.1. User s guide The following Member Country made comments at the 85 th General Session: Thailand.
5 During the adoption of the two new chapters on Salmonella, a Member Country requested that a sentence be added to the purpose and scope of both Chapters 6.12. and 6.13. that would read: This chapter is not intended to be used to elaborate conditions for trade. In response, the President noted that the issue would better be addressed in the User s Guide. The Code Commission confirmed that these chapters are not intended to provide recommendations on trade measures but on the way Veterinary Services could eliminate or control food safety hazards. In response to the concerns of that Member Country, the Code Commission amended the paragraph relating to Chapter 6.4. in Section C point 4 of the User s guide to clarify that the chapters in Section 6 provide recommendations for some specific on-farm prevention and control plans for the unlisted foodborne pathogen Salmonella as part of the Veterinary Services mission to avoid, eliminate or control food safety hazards in animal production. At the request of the OIE Headquarters, the Code Commission added a new sentence to the introduction of the User s guide to indicate that all chapters now include the dates of first adoption and last revision. This will assist Member Countries to ensure that they use the latest version of the chapters when implementing them. In regards to the date of adoption and date of revision, the OIE Headquarters noted it had made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information based on its historical records. The revised User s guide is attached as Annex 3 for comments and is proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. 4.2. Criteria applied by the OIE for assessing the safety of commodities (Chapter 2.2.) The following Member Countries made comments at the 85 th General Session: the United States on behalf of the OIE Members of the Region of the Americas, Australia and AU-IBAR. The Code Commission considered Member Countries comments on the text adopted in May 2017, especially about the inconsistency between Articles 2.2.1. and 2.2.2., the reference to GMP, and proposed amendments to Article 2.2.1. In response to Member Countries comments on the use of the term should throughout this chapter, the Code Commission recalled that the intent of the chapter is to describe criteria and the way in which these criteria are to be applied when drafting lists of safe commodities rather than recommendations on treatments. The Code Commission modified the fourth paragraph of Article 2.2.1. to clarify that its intention is to indicate that this is a prerequisite to applying the criteria mentioned in Article 2.2.2. The Code Commission also modified Article 2.2.2. to include some recommendations for those who use this chapter and, finally, a clear cross reference between Articles 2.2.1. and 2.2.2 was made. In conclusion, the Code Commission noted that the chapter on how to apply the criteria is directed at ad hoc Groups and the Specialist Commissions. The revised Chapter 2.2. is attached as Annex 4 for comments and is proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. 4.3. Prevention and control of Salmonella in commercial pig production systems (Chapter 6.13.) The following Member Countries made comments at the 85 th General Session: Australia, Costa Rica on behalf of OIE Members of the Americas, Thailand and USA. In examining a Member Country comment made during the 85 th General Session indicating that infection with Salmonella in pigs is not an OIE listed disease, the Code Commission recalled that this is a public health issue and noted that these concerns had been addressed by the modification it proposed to the User s guide (see above). In reference to Member Country s requests to clarify the use of the term commercial specifically to exclude backyard and family pigs in the chapter, the Code Commission reiterated its view that narrowing the scope of this chapter would have consequences for other chapters related to pigs and that it was not appropriate. The Code Commission noted that the aim of this chapter is to solve problems in the production and commercialisation of meat for consumption. For the purposes of the chapter, the term commercial pig production systems is intended to mean production of pigs and pig meat that are put on the market. Therefore, the Code Commission proposed to amend the definition as follows: means those systems in which the purpose of the operation includes some or all of the following: breeding, rearing and management of pigs for the production of commercially traded pigs or pig meat. The scope would hence be positively limited to the products that are commercially traded.
6 The revised Chapter 6.13. is attached as Annex 5 for Member Country comments and is proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. 4.4. Welfare of working equids (Chapter 7.12.) The following Member Countries made comments at the 85 th General Session: Uruguay on behalf of the OIE Members of the Region of the Americas, Thailand and EU. The Code Commission considered Member Country comments that were sent before, and expressed at, the General Session and the reiteration of a comment from the USA on Article 7.12.12. In response to a Member Country s repeated request to include horses used in hippotherapy in the scope of this chapter, the Code Commission reiterated its previous advice that this category of animals is similar to horses that are used in leisure activities and sport and as such is out of the scope of the chapter. Working equids are those that are used primarily in traction and transportation, e.g. horse drawn carts and carriages. In relation to a proposal from Member Countries to add sweating to the indicators of heat stress, the Code Commission noted that sweating per se is not an indicator. In regards to the reference provided by those Member Countries to support their proposal, it noted the reference cited was insufficient to enable it to verify the applicability of it. However, the Code Commission considered that excessive sweating could be an indicator of heat stress and proposed to add a criterion excessive sweating. The Code Commission discussed the comment made on behalf of the Americas during the 85 th General Session to consider the deletion of an input-based measure on the recommendation on the maximum working hours for working equids. The Code Commission recalled that the President of the Code Commission had requested the Delegates of that Region to provide information to support this proposal, but as such information had not been submitted it could not make any modification to the article. The Code Commission requested the Headquarters to contact the Member Countries and request that they provide relevant scientific information to support their proposal. It also encouraged the Headquarters to look for relevant scientific information so the issue could be considered further at its next meeting. The article will be reconsidered by the Code Commission in light of new information when it is provided. 4.5. Infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (Chapter 8.11.) The following Member Country made comments at the 85 th General Session: Australia. In examining the Member Country comment challenging the scientific expertise and assessment in reference to the epidemiological link for animal-to-human or animal-to-animal transmission of M. tuberculosis infection, the Code Commission noted that establishing the public health burden of M. tuberculosis is obvious even if it is difficult to prove the actual transmission between animals and humans. It is completely reasonable to assume that whenever cattle are found to be a reservoir in a country where humans are infected at the same time, assumptions are made that there is a link and it is appropriate to control the disease in animals. However, the Code Commission considered that more analysis and discussion is needed with the Scientific and Biological Commissions on whether M. tuberculosis and M. caprae should be included in the OIE listed diseases. In this regard, the Code Commission requested the OIE Headquarters to seek expert advice in order to assess the two pathogenic agents (M. caprae and M. tuberculosis) against the OIE criteria for listing. The Code Commission noted that it is important that the scientific references used be cited when this assessment is undertaken and the information should be available for the Code, Scientific and Biological Commissions to consider at their meetings in February 2018.
7 In response to a former Member Country comment on herd freedom and surveillance in goats and camelids, the Code Commission agreed that existing scientific information shows that it would be possible to formulate a practicable system for determining herd or flock freedom. This would need a testing regime to be included in the Terrestrial Manual, but the Biological Standards Commission had indicated previously that there was currently not enough information available to do this. However, the Code Commission noted that there is a need for joint discussion on the complexity of the issue and that literature previously provided by a Member Country showed that the sensitivity and specificity of testing in goats and camelids is no worse than in cattle. The Code Commission urged the Headquarters to work with the Biological Standards Commission on the revision of the chapter of the Manual on tuberculosis and the possible inclusion of tests on camelids and goats so that surveillance and testing could be addressed in the Code. The following scientific information was provided to the Code Commission: legislation supporting Argentina s National Plan for Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis (Resolución SENASA 128/2012): http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infoleginternet/anexos/195000-199999/195314/texact.htm A study of tuberculosis in goats in New Zealand considered the sensitivity of the tuberculin test to be 80%. Sanson R.L. (1998). Tuberculosis in goats. Surveillance. Vol.15, No.2; 7 8. A review article in the OIE s Scientific and Technical Review reports sensitivity of the tuberculin test in goats to be 100%, 38%, >95% and 87% in various studies. The same article cites sensitivity of the Bovigam test in goats as 100%, 83.7% and 87.2%. These sensitivities are, with one exception, adequate for most purposes. Cousins D.V., Florisson N. (2005). A review of tests available for use in the diagnosis of tuberculosis in non-bovine species. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 24 (3), 1039 1059. 4.6. Infection with avian influenza viruses (Chapter 10.4.) The following Member Countries made comments at the 85 th General Session or submitted written comments to the OIE: Australia, Latvia on behalf of the OIE Members of the European Region, France on behalf of the EU, Thailand on behalf of ASEAN, and the International Poultry Council (IPC). The Code Commission noted in the report of its February 2017 meeting that there is a need for further revision of this chapter to take into account the following: differences among Member Countries in terms of notification to the OIE, differing needs when responding to either low pathogenic AI (LPAI) or highly pathogenic AI (HPAI) outbreaks and when recovering free status, impacts of unjustified barriers to trade being implemented by some Member Countries, and need to include articles on safe commodities and to expand those on surveillance. OIE Headquarters introduced the discussion paper that it had prepared in response to the request from the Code Commission at its February 2017 meeting. The paper noted that the AI chapter had been comprehensively revised and adopted by the World Assembly in May 2005. This revision was proposed in order to provide clear notification criteria, as well as definitions for free status, conditions for status recovery, and commodity-specific risk-based mitigating measures, which would provide safety when trading and encouraging transparent reporting. This new text was aimed at encouraging rapid and transparent reporting of AI by Member Countries, as well as giving clear recommendations on how to avoid unjustified trade disruptions resulting from these reports. After considering concerns about problems in trade raised by Member Countries at the General Session in May 2017 and in correspondence, the paper notes that there are strong indications that this chapter has been ineffective in fulfilling its objectives in terms of disease control and resumption or continuation of trade. In addition, the chapter is unclear about the difference between health measures for low and highly pathogenic AI viruses and lacks sufficient detail to guide
8 Member Countries in the implementation of zoning and compartmentalisation. To date, the disease continues to affect large parts of the world with high impacts, while the number of trade issues related to AI outbreaks remains relatively high compared to other diseases of concern. These issues appear to be related to non-implementation of existing OIE standards by some Member Countries, either because of disregard for their obligations or difficulties in abiding by standards that cannot be adapted easily to their situation. In this regard, the Code Commission has received several requests from Member Countries to update the AI chapter to ensure that the requirements are still relevant to the most recent scientific findings. This revision is more important in today s environment because many countries worldwide are experiencing unprecedented HPAI events, which threaten animal health, public health, food security, agricultural productivity, farming community livelihoods and global trade, and the number of circulating subtypes are continually increasing. The Code Commission thanked the OIE Headquarters for the paper and the high priority that had been given to this issue. It broadly agreed with the definition of the problems outlined in the discussion paper. The Code Commission focussed its discussion on the draft Terms of Reference for the proposed ad hoc Group and on its management and membership. Given the breadth of the issues to be discussed, observers from the Code, Scientific and Biological Standards Commissions should be included in the ad hoc Group. Membership of the group needs to include a balance of representation to cover the broad range of issues including risk managers (e.g. CVO), reference laboratory, OFFLU, industry and the Working Group on Wildlife. OIE Headquarters noted that it would aim to hold the first meeting before the end of the year so that the report could be considered by the Specialist Commissions in February 2018. The Code Commission reviewed the draft Terms of Reference of the ad hoc Group and made several comments and proposals for further consideration by the OIE Headquarters. The Code Commission further noted that a key point for the ad hoc Group was the need to review the virus dynamics of AI introduction via wild birds with respect to critical number of wild birds and presence of water bodies required for AI virus amplification. In addition, the ad hoc Group needs to propose effective biosecurity measures to be implemented by poultry farmers to prevent the introduction of AI virus from wild birds into poultry. The Code Commission stressed that another important task to be carried out by the ad hoc Group is to propose risk-mitigating measures for trading some commodities safely from countries or zones not free from AI. OIE Headquarters noted that in line with its efforts to provide greater transparency to the work of ad hoc Groups it was intending to put Terms of Reference for these groups on its website along with the reports. The Terms of Reference for the revision of the chapter on avian influenza, together with the revised discussion paper will be put on its website in October 2017. 4.7. Infection with lumpy skin disease virus (Chapter 11.9.) The following Member Countries made comments at the 85 th General Session: EU. The President of the Code Commission reminded the Delegates that this chapter had been adopted as a matter of urgency because of the crisis in Europe and the Middle East. Member Countries had raised a question concerning the inclusion of which are not a consequence of vaccination in the definition of a case. The Code Commission agreed with the explanation provided by the Scientific Commission that currently it is not possible to differentiate vaccine-induced antibodies from those induced by natural infection. Furthermore, the presence of antibodies does not ensure complete protection. Consequently, the case definition was not modified. In relation to the comment of a Member Country on inconsistencies between point 2) of Article 11.9.3. and Article 11.9.15., the Code Commission proposed to modify the text in Article 11.9.15. on the General principles of surveillance, to increase the clarity of the chapter with respect to clinical signs.
9 The Code Commission agreed with a Member Country proposal to modify Article 11.9.4. and proposed some additional modifications to improve the clarity of the text. The Code Commission agreed with the proposal of a Member Country to delete the term domestic throughout the chapter, as both Bos indicus and Bos taurus are domestic animals. In response to Member Countries noting that Article 11.9.5. did not explicitly exclude the importation of seropositive animals from a free country or zone, the Code Commission clarified that while there is prohibition on vaccination in a free country or zone, there is no prohibition on the importation of vaccinated animals into that free country. Article 11.9.6. states that when imported from an infected country, animals should be vaccinated. The revised Articles 11.9.4., 11.9.5., 11.9.6. and 11.9.15. are attached as Annex 6 for Member Country comments and are proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. 4.8. Infection with African swine fever virus (Chapter 15.1.) The following Member Countries made comments at the 85 th General Session or submitted written comments to the OIE: Australia, China, Korea and USA. The Code Commission considered the Member Country comments proposing a change to the definition of domestic pigs (i.e. excluding backyard farms and family pig farms for own use ) in Article 15.1.2. The Code Commission did not agree with the rationale for excluding backyard and family pigs from the case definition because not only there is no clear distinction between the different types of production but also backyard operations play a significant role in the epidemiology of the disease. Backyard farms are a significant pathway for the infection of larger units. Indeed, backyard and family-farmed pigs and their products are commercialized locally and present a high risk to other domestic populations. That is one of the reasons why the chapter allows for the distinction of status of free compartments, which should be protected from the rest of the pigs by appropriate biosecurity. Regarding captive wild pigs, the Code Commission noted that in some regions, some wild pigs are kept and fed for the production of meat and should be considered captive wild in accordance with the glossary definition. In that case, they should be considered together with domestic pig populations because of the risk they represent. In other regions, some wild pigs may be kept in large parks or ranches but are not fed or under direct human supervision and cannot be considered captive wild in accordance with the glossary definition, but rather wild pigs. The President of the Code Commission recalled the discussion during the 85 th General Session, in which Member Countries proposed to delete the last paragraph of Article 15.1.2. on safe trade of pig commodities despite the notification of cases in wildlife. The Code Commission agreed to delete the paragraph, since it is one of the purposes of the chapter that pig commodities can be safely traded from countries complying with the relevant provisions of the Code, even if they notify an infection with ASFV in wild or feral pigs or African wild suids. Furthermore, the Code Commission proposed a new Article 15.1.1bis. on safe commodities, including canned meat and gelatine. In considering the inclusion of canned meat in the new article, the Code Commission referred to the Codex definition of canned food (CX/RCP-23/1979 Code of hygienic practice for low and acidified low acid canned foods), which means commercially sterile food in hermetically sealed containers. The Code Commission also considered these amendments responded to the question of another Member Country concerning the title of the point on safe commodities in other chapters. The revised Articles 15.1.1bis., 15.1.2. and 15.1.22. are attached as Annex 7 for Member Country comments and are proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. 5. Texts circulated for Member Country comments at the February 2017 Code Commission meeting 5.1. Glossary Comments were received from Australia, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, USA, EU and AU-IBAR. The Code Commission considered Member Country comments and proposed the following amendments and observations on proposed changes to the Glossary.
10 Compartment In line with the proposal to remove the term disease from the Glossary, the words infection and infestation were included in the definition. The Code Commission considered it was not necessary to include defined by the Veterinary Authority after the words animal subpopulation as it is the responsibility of industry to define the subpopulation while the Veterinary Authority approves its status. It did not agree with a proposal to delete the words for the purpose of international trade or disease prevention and control in a country or zone, as, in fact, this was included at the request of Member Countries in order to convey the intention that compartments were not only for trade but also for disease prevention and control. Containment zone In response to a request to replace movement control, biosecurity and sanitary measures with the term biocontainment measures the Code Commission did not consider that it was appropriate or necessary to replace defined terms with biocontainment measures which was used in a different context and is not defined in the Code or Manual. Disease In considering Member Country comments, the Code Commission agreed that the consequential changes as a result of the deletion of the definition of disease required throughout the Code will be extensive. It noted that it would make relevant changes as it reviews chapters and, where appropriate, either the term infection and infestation would replace disease or the term disease would be retained and unitalicised. It agreed that consideration should be given to harmonising the Aquatic Code at the same time, and noted that the Presidents of the two Commissions had been discussing this for some time and that OIE Headquarters would look at how to manage this once the decision was taken to delete the definition. It further noted that the word disease would not disappear from the Code entirely, and references to disease-specific chapters would be replaced with listed disease-specific chapters and that the definitions of notifiable disease and emerging disease would remain. In response to a proposal to include the term infestation within the definition of infection, it did not agree with the rationale provided as there are Code chapters that referred only to infestation with, and the distinction is still relevant (see Item 5.2.). Free zone The Code Commission did not consider it was necessary to include defined by the veterinary authority, since it is already included in the definition of zone. Infected zone The Code Commission included the words defined as such in order to avoid confusion with provisions to determine the health status of a zone in other relevant chapters of the Code, especially some listed disease-specific chapters. Protection zone The Code Commission noted that in the report of its February 2017 meeting (Annex 21) two definitions for protection zone had mistakenly been included; the second option presented was the proposed amended definition. The Code Commission agreed to change adjacent to neighbouring as it more accurately reflects how the Code deals with protection zones and their wider application. In response to a proposal to replace pathogenic agent with infection and infestation the Code Commission disagreed as the entry refers to the entry of a pathogenic agent. With respect to a proposal to replace biosecurity with biocontainment, the Code Commission considered that it was not appropriate or necessary to replace defined terms that are relevant and well understood. Further, with respect to the request to include free before zone, the Code Commission agreed with the Scientific Commission that this was not appropriate, as protection zone does not, by definition, necessarily mean be free. Vaccination The Code Commission agreed to replace several with more for consistency with the definition of compartment and because one or more is more appropriate, as several means two or more. Zone/region The Code Commission noted that the proposal to delete the words population of and to only refer to animal subpopulations changed the intent of the Code in that a zone, which is based on geographical data, could include a whole animal population in a country or only a subpopulation. Transparency The Code Commission noted there were no comments on the proposed deletion of the definition of transparency in the glossary, and that relevant content of this definition would be included in Chapter 2.1. (see below).
11 The revised definitions are attached in Annex 8 for Member Country comments and are proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. NB: With respect to new or revised definitions being proposed because of a new or revised chapter, these definitions will be included with the chapter in the relevant annex. This will assist Member Countries in their review of the chapters and preparation of their comments. Revision of Article 2.1.1. (Consequence of the deletion of the definition of transparency ) At its February 2017 meeting, the Code Commission noted in its review of the Glossary that transparency appears in one chapter only, Chapter 2.1. Its placement in the Glossary arose because originally risk analysis was addressed in two chapters. These were later merged into a single chapter, but transparency remained in the Glossary. Noting this, the Code Commission removed the italics from the word transparency in Article 2.1.1., and consequently revised point 4) of Article 2.1.3., inserting the sentence defining transparency that was deleted from the Glossary, to read: Consistency in risk assessment methods should be encouraged and transparency is essential to ensure fairness and rationality, consistency in decision-making and ease of understanding by all the interested parties. Transparency means the comprehensive documentation of all data, information, assumptions, methods, results, discussion and conclusions used in the risk analysis. During this meeting, the Code Commission re-examined the proposal and considered that the amendments proposed to Article 2.1.3. were clear and there was no need for further amendment. It recalled that it had included the first sentence only because the meaning of the second sentence is clearly conveyed in the rest of the article. The revised Articles 2.1.1. and 2.1.3. are attached in Annex 9 for Member Country comments and are proposed for adoption at the 86 th General Session in May 2018. 5.2. Animal health surveillance (Chapter 1.4.) and review of the ad hoc Group report (June 2017) The Code Commission commended the ad hoc Group for its work on revising the chapter. Regarding the ad hoc Group proposal to revise the definition of infection to include infestation, the Code Commission did not agree as not only this would involve a large body of work to update all the related chapters, but also the International Epidemiological Association 1 dictionary contained separate definitions for these terms. The Code Commission agreed with the proposal of the ad hoc Group to replace the term early detection system with early warning system (Article 1.4.8.) and amended the definition in the Glossary accordingly. For consistency with the approach taken in other chapters the term disease was replaced with infection and infestation where appropriate, the term disease-specific chapters was revised to read listed disease-specific chapters and non-infected was changed to uninfected as this is correct English. The Code Commission proceeded to review the chapter article by article and proposed the following amendments: Article 1.4.3. Surveillance systems Point 1 b) The Code Commission included timing in the subheading for clarity, added a new sentence and bullets on the factors to be taken into consideration when determining the timing and duration of surveillance. As it is not only the epidemiology of the disease which determines the surveillance activities but it is also important to identify how and when samples should be taken, and the frequency of collection when designing the system. 1 http://irea.ir/files/site1/pages/dictionary.pdf
12 Point 1 d) Epidemiological units The ad hoc Group considered the definition provided in the Glossary, which considers only a group of animals as epidemiological units. Whilst the Group agreed that, most often, epidemiological units consist of a group of animals, it pointed out that, in some circumstances, epidemiological units may consist of individual animals (one animal holding, wildlife, etc.). The Code Commission considered the proposal of the ad hoc Group, which was supported by the Scientific Commission, and agreed to consider the possibility of revising the definition at its February 2018 meeting. Article 1.4.4. Surveillance methods The Code Commission proposed several editorial amendments to this article to improve the clarity and to ensure consistency with other chapters of the Code, including the deletion of the term animal identification system, as traceability goes beyond the definition used in the Glossary, and replacing likelihood and consequence of disease with risk of introduction of the infection, since risk is the result of the likelihood and consequences of a hazard. Article 1.4.5. Considerations in survey design The Code Commission proposed amendments to clarify the language and to better define the considerations in the design of surveys. Article 1.4.6. Surveillance to demonstrate freedom from a disease or infection The Code Commission included a new point to address requirements to declare a compartment free from infection or infestation and proposed changes to improve clarity and for consistency with the Glossary and other chapters of the Code. Since the proposed revised chapter is significantly different from the current chapter, the proposed revision is provided as clean text. The draft revised Chapter 1.4. and draft revised definition of early warning system are attached as Annex 24 and are proposed for Member Country comments. 5.3. Procedures for self-declaration and for official recognition by the OIE (Chapter 1.6.) - Questionnaires Comments were received from Australia, Chile, New Caledonia, New Zealand, USA and EU. The OIE Headquarters advised the Code Commission that the Scientific Commission had considered and addressed the Member Country comments on the questionnaires related to official recognition at its recent meeting. However, although all Member Countries comments had been addressed by the Scientific Commission, the Code Commission, after having reviewed one of them, considered that they still required some significant editing to improve the context and add clarity to the language. Given the size of this task, and taking into consideration the comments from Member Countries at the General Session, the Code Commission decided it was not possible to review all the questionnaires thoroughly at this meeting. The OIE Headquarters proposed that it would undertake further work between now and the Scientific and Code Commissions meetings of February 2018, with the assistance of Professor MacDiarmid. The Code Commission could then circulate them for further Member Country comments after its February meeting with the possibility of proposing them for adoption in May 2018. The Code Commission also requested that the OIE prepare the questionnaires as a separate chapter for each disease because, in its opinion, Chapter 1.6. should only cover the procedures and that this would facilitate any future revisions of the questionnaires in a more efficient and effective manner. 5.4. Zoning and compartmentalisation (Chapter 4.3.) Comments were received from Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Caledonia, New Zealand, South Africa and EU. The Code Commission noted the general comment of a Member Country in support of the chapter and the expanded concept of a containment zone. In regards to another Member Country comment in relation to the definitions of free zone, infected zone and protection zone in the chapter, it noted these terms in the chapter and in the Glossary would be aligned and adopted at the same time. With respect to the use of disease, infection and infestation, cases and outbreaks, the Code Commission noted it would make appropriate amendments to harmonise their use throughout the Code.
13 Article 4.3.1. Introduction In response to a Member Country comment on paragraph 8 and proposals to make the text clearer, the Code Commission considered that there was no need to include reference to zones being defined on a geographical basis as this was adequately covered in the rest of the chapter. It proposed minor amendments to improve the readability. Article 4.3.2. General considerations In responding to Member Country comments, the Code Commission proposed to add reference to movement control and official control programmes in the first paragraph and where appropriate vaccination, treatment and protection against vectors in the fourth paragraph. In response to a Member Country comment on the last paragraph on certification, the Code Commission agreed with the opinion of the Scientific Commission that certification may not always be required, although some form of paperwork would generally be required, so proposed to add when necessary to clarify this point. It also added reference to vaccination in the list of systems to be audited. Article 4.3.3. Principles for defining and establishing a zone or compartment In responding to Member Countries comments on the legal boundaries in point )1, the Code Commission disagreed with a proposal to replace legal with administrative as this was inconsistent with the language used in other parts of the Code and that in its view administrative boundaries would be covered by legal boundaries. In response to the same Member Countries comments on point 4) on the need to include the concept of movement controls, the Code Commission agreed with the opinion of the Scientific Commission that individual animal identification is not compulsory and that movement control is already included in the text (as well as in point 3)). The Code Commission amended the point by deleting animal and inserting commodities for consistency with the first sentence and because the definition of commodity in the Glossary includes live animals. In responding to a proposal to include records of cleansing and disinfection in point 5) the Code Commission noted this was covered by and any other criteria so was considered unnecessary and reminded the Member Countries that cleaning is covered in the definition of disinfection. The Code Commission proposed other editorial amendments for consistency with other chapters in the Code including deleting disease where it appears before risk as disease is included in the definition of risk in the Glossary. Article 4.3.4. Free zone The Code Commission agreed with the opinion of the Scientific Commission in response to a Member Country proposal to include vector surveillance in the second paragraph. The Commissions agreed that the presence of competent vector is a factor to take into consideration in surveillance and that the absence of the competent vector may be evidence of the absence of the transmission of the disease. Article 4.3.5. Infected zone The Code Commission noted the opinion of the Scientific Commission about the definition of infected zone and noted it had proposed amendments to the definition in the Glossary, which were also included in this article. The Code Commission made other editorial amendments for consistency with other chapters in the Code including deleting disease and replacing it with infection or infestation as appropriate.
14 Article 4.3.6. Protection zone The Code Commission considered the comments of Member Countries and clarified that because of an oversight there were two proposals of definition included in the Glossary in its February 2017 report and that the first proposal for the definition should not have been included. It disagreed with a comment stating that the establishment of a protection zone does not guarantee that the introduction of the pathogenic agent is prevented. In response to a request to delete the second vehicles before for transportation in point 4), the Code Commission noted that the definition of vehicles/vessels contained in the Glossary specifically referenced live animals and did not include commodities, and it amended the point to read used for transport to clarify the intent of this point. The Code Commission further noted that any time the status of the protection zone changes, the status should be determined in accordance with the relevant listed disease-specific chapters. The Code Commission considered the proposal from the Scientific Commission to include provisions in the Code to enable countries to establish a temporary preventive zone, as a containment zone, in response to a sudden increased risk. The two main purposes are to avoid trade barriers for those countries that may decide to implement vaccination to manage that risk, while retaining their status as free countries or zones and to protect the status of the rest of the free country or zone in case of introduction of a pathogenic agent. The Code Commission had a broad discussion, including with the OIE Headquarters Status Department, on the concept of «temporary preventive» zone and agreed on the need to include the concept within the article on protection zone. It considered this could be addressed by inserting new paragraphs at the end of the article. The new paragraphs provide for the establishment of a temporary protection zone in the event of an emergency, such as a sudden increased risk to a free country or zone. A paragraph was included in order to clarify that in such a situation, measures implemented in a protection zone established within a free country or zone will not affect the status of the rest of the free country or zone. However, some of the measures, such as vaccination, may make it necessary to distinguish the status of the protection zone from the rest of the country or zone. The Code Commission noted that, by definition, temporary implied for a limited period of time. Therefore, it included a paragraph to clarify that a temporary protection zone should be established for a defined period, and that at the end of that period either it has to be permanently distinguished from the rest of the country or zone or it has to be disestablished. It also wanted to ensure that Member Countries were clear in their understanding of the consequences of a case of an infection or infestation being detected in the temporary protection zone. It added a further paragraph to clarify that providing the zone was established at least two incubation periods before the occurrence this would not affect the status of the rest of the country or zone. It further clarified, without it being needed in the article, that should a case occur before two incubation periods have elapsed since the establishment of the zone, the status of the country or zone would be suspended until that zone becomes a containment zone. Article 4.3.7. Containment zone In examining Member Country comments on this article, the Code Commission noted, in agreement with the Scientific Commission, that if sufficiently justified, it may be possible to have more than one containment zone provided that the outbreaks in different containment zones are not epidemiologically linked. Hence, the Code Commission reiterated its February 2017 report explanation that there is a need for a reference to all epidemiologically linked outbreaks being in one containment zone. The Code Commission further agreed with the comment that it may not always be possible to identify the definitive epidemiological link and for it to be the main criteria in defining the number of containment zones. The design of the containment zone or zones depends on the Veterinary Services strategy to manage outbreaks while facilitating safe trade. The containment zones for diseases with official status must be recognised by the Scientific Commission, and countries should provide the OIE with evidence to justify the establishment and the maintenance of the zone. For other diseases, countries should provide evidence to their trading partners.